DTS Group Qld v JLF Corporation Ltd

[2005] QPEC 85

[2005] QPEC 085

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 2526 of 2005

DTS GROUP QLD

and

JLF CORPORATION LTD

Appellant

Appellant

and

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/08/2005

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Integrated Planning Regulation 1998 s 18 - concession that development site had frontages to three streets, with different names, and that one should not be regarded as the mere continuation of another - public notification by signs on two frontages only was therefore
incomplete - developers' appeal could proceed by utilisation of s 4.1.5A of the Integrated Planning Act 1997

HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft which declares that "there has been partial compliance with section 3.4.4.1(b) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (the Act) in relation to the placing of a notice on the land in the way prescribed under regulation and that the Court is satisfied that pursuant to rule 4.1.5A of the Act the partial compliance has not substantially restricted the opportunity for a person to exercise the rights conferred on the person by the Act." The regulation applicable is s 18 of the Integrated Planning Regulation 1998.

The appeal was adjourned, until today as things turned out,
to enable the parties to seek to resolve what may have
been a deficiency in the public notification that requires the placing of notices on a development site.  See [2005]
QPEC 074.  The appellants have prepared relevant affidavit evidence.  The site has three frontages, Learoyd Road in the north, Penny Lane in the east and Delathin Road in the south.  The continuation of Delathin Road to the east beyond Penny Road is yet to be constructed.  At the site, as things stand at present, it is perhaps ambiguous what the street frontages are in that Delathin Road and Penny Lane meet on a curve bordering the site at some point that can't be clearly identified.  The physical appearance of Delathin Road as constructed is that it then swings in another curve to the south; however, the southern section is named Blue Range Road.

It is interesting to note that the UBD Street Directory extract in evidence does not acknowledge Penny Lane at all, identifying the north/south section there as part of Delathin Road. Confusingly, it also indicates where the new construction to the east is anticipated to be. The confusion is understandable. Mr Bittner representing the appellants in their developer appeal makes the concession that the street advertising was insufficient, seeking the s 4.1.5A order set out above to resolve the situation. Whether or not his concession was necessary, it emerges from the present circumstances that if developers wish to save trouble and cost they would be well advised to place more signs on street frontages rather than fewer.

The practical means of entering Delathin Road is by Penny Lane. The Court is comfortably satisfied that the absence of a third sign could not have limited opportunities of interested members of the public to notice advertising of the development applications. It's an appropriate case for use of section 4.1.5A and here it is as indicated.

-----